Forum:A suggestion regarding difficulty tables
My default strategy when donning gear to adjust challenge difficulties is to aim for 90% in order to maximise CP gain whilst ensuring a good return of items and other rewards. I doubt that I'm alone in this; the Leveling guide suggests that "a high-gain, low-CP route means you aim for close to 90% (but never more!) in any challenge". Note that "never more": a 89% difficulty reduces the average returns only slightly, but a 91% difficulty almost halves the expected CP gain. This applies similarly to a strategy aiming for 60%, also mentioned in the guide. Because of this, it would be of far greater utility for the difficulty listings to use the floor of each category's calculated difficulty, rather than the rounded figures, to ensure that "never more". Then I and like-minded others could simply read off the quality level needed to reach the desired target. As it is, oftentimes I apply the rounded figure only to find I have to adjust my gear a second time to take it down a level. The alternative is to calculate the level myself. Either way: tedious. Would it be possible tweak the code that generates the listings to use floored figures rather than rounded ones? Charlotte Howard (talk) 23:40, August 29, 2014 (UTC) Not sure if I understand the request correctly. The numbers shown should be the minimum level required to get at least the listed percentage of difficulty; reducing your level to one below that will be the highest level below that percentage. e.g. if level X is listed as chancy (60%), then X-1 will be the level below. Ah, wait, I see. The difficulty ranges go from (N*10) + 1-10, not (N*10) + 0-9, so it's more useful to know the 1-percenters - i.e. the lowest level that hits a desired difficulty range. Right? Then level X-1 is the highest probability falling in the next difficulty range below it. It would be easy enough; better to wait for some other votes for or against, I think. OTOH, I could just do it now and wait for the squawks. Jemann (talk) 07:10, September 16, 2014 (UTC) High X0% will be the lowest to hit a new range, due to rounding. It might be easier to just use X9%, except for 100%. This also helps if the challenges are incorrectly branded by a level or so. — Aximillio (Message Wall) 09:20, September 16, 2014 (UTC) FBG rounds the difficultes down, at least when classifying difficulty ranges. I just re-checked Keep a watch on the church - a Shadowy of 175 should have a difficulty of ~80.76%, but that's displayed as 80% and classified as 'very modest'. Jemann (talk) 01:51, September 17, 2014 (UTC) Ah, thanks =) — Aximillio (Message Wall) 09:36, September 17, 2014 (UTC) Not sure if it's only me, but I'd like to see the 100% chance again. That's much more use to me than 91%... — Aximillio (Message Wall) 13:05, October 23, 2014 (UTC)